003-3251159-3645099

667 16.09.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgments[1] concerning Bulgaria, Germany, Greece, Russia and Ukraine   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following 12 Chamber judgments. The judgments available only in French are indicated with an asterisk (*).   One repetitive case[2] and length-of-proceedings cases, with the Court’s main finding indicated, can be found at the end of the press release.     Just satisfaction Holy Synod of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church (Metropolitan Inokentiy) and Others v. Bulgaria (nos. 412/03 and 35677/04) In a judgment of 22 January 2009, the Court held in particular that there had been a violation of Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) of the European Convention on Human Rights on account of the Bulgarian authorities having forced the divided Orthodox religious community to unite under one of its two rival leaderships. The Court held that the question of the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention was not ready for decision in so far as pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage was concerned. In its judgment today, the Court awarded the applicant organisation 50,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage.   Anagnostou-Dedouli v. Greece (Nº 24779/08)* The applicant, Artemis Anagnostou-Dedouli, is a Greek national who was born in 1951 and lives in Athens. In 2004, while she was director-general of a department within the Employment Ministry, a law entered into force which automatically ended the term of office of all directors-general. She re-applied for the position of director-general, but was appointed only as a director. Relying on Article 6 (right to a fair hearing), she argued that the conditions governing her appeal against the downgrading of her post had breached her right of access to a court. No violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (access to court) Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) (execution of decision) Just satisfaction: dismissed   Chernichkin v. Russia (no. 39874/03) The applicant, Aleksandr Chernichkin, is a Russian national who was born in 1941 and lives in Moscow. Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right of access to court), Mr Chernichkin complained about the Moscow courts’ refusal to examine a claim he had brought against the Ministry of Finance for the excessive length of proceedings concerning the unilateral reduction of the interest rate on savings he had deposited in 1995 with the Savings Bank of Russia (Sberbank). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Just satisfaction: EUR 7,200 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 1,000 (costs and expenses)   Danilin v. Russia (no. 4176/03) The applicant, Zakhar Danilin, is a Russian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Moscow. Convicted in April 2004 of robbery, Mr Danilin complained in particular about the deplorable conditions of his detention pending the criminal proceedings against him. He relied in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Violation of Article 3 Just satisfaction: EUR 13,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 300 (costs and expenses)   Dmitrachkov v. Russia (no. 18825/02) The applicant, Aleksey Dmitrachkov, is a Russian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Buzuluk (Orenburg Region, Russia). The case concerned his allegations that he had been ill-treated while held in police detention, notably that he had been beaten in order to force him into confessing to theft and robbery. He was convicted as charged in December 2001 and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment. He also complained about the lack of an effective investigation into his allegation of ill-treatment. He relied in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) Violation of Article 3 (lack of effective investigation) Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 400 (costs and expenses)   Baloga v. Ukraine (no. 620/05) The applicant, Petro Baloga, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Fediyivka (Kirovograd Region, Ukraine). A former district police officer, Mr Baloga complained about the excessive length of criminal proceedings brought against him for abuse of authority and forgery. He was found guilty as charged in May 2005 and was amnestied for the one-year prison sentence. He relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: the finding of a violation sufficient just satisfaction   Vitruk v. Ukraine (no. 26127/03) The applicant, Nikolay Vitruk, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Kiev. Arrested in May 1999 on suspicion of murder, Mr Vitruk complained about the excessive length and unlawfulness of his pre-trial detention without proper review. He relied on Article 5 §§ 1, 3 and 4 (right to liberty and security). He also complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him which are still at the preliminary-investigation stage, in breach of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time). Three violations of Article 5 § 1 Violation of Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 Violation of Article 6 § 1 (length) Just satisfaction: EUR 6,000 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 20 (costs and expenses)     Repetitive case   The following case raises issues which have already been submitted to the Court.   Kravchenko and 23 Other “military accommodation” cases v. Russia (nos. 11609/05, 12516/05, 17393/05, 20214/05, 25724/05, 32953/05, 1953/06, 10908/06, 16101/06, 26696/06, 40417/06, 44437/05, 44977/06, 46544/06, 50835/06, 22635/07, 36662/07, 36951/07, 38501/07, 54307/07, 22723/08, 36406/08 and 55990/08)* This case concerned in particular the delayed enforcement of final judgments in the applicants’ favour ordering that they be allocated subsidised accommodation. They relied on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property). Violation of Article 6 § 1 (fairness) Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1     Length-of-proceedings cases   Breiler v. Germany (no. 16386/07) No violation of Article 6 § 1   Koukouris v. Greece (no. 24089/08)* Kyriazis and Others v. Greece (no. 51382/08)* Papadopoulou v. Greece (no. 53311/08)* In these cases, the applicants complained in particular under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time) about the excessive length of (non-criminal) proceedings. Violation of Article 6 § 1 – all three cases Violation of Article 13 – 1st case     ***   These summaries by the Registry do not bind the Court. The full texts of the Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08 Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.   [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17‑member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] In which the Court has reached the same findings as in similar cases raising the same issues under the Convention.